Raysoni v. Payless Auto Deals, LLC
323 Ga. App. 583
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Raysoni bought a 2008 Honda Odyssey from Payless Auto Deals after a salesman orally represented the vehicle had no prior wreck or damage and showed a Carfax report showing no accidents.
- After trading it in, Carmax and an inspection revealed significant frame damage and extensive body repairs; Raysoni alleges the auction had announced unibody/frame damage and Payless knew but misrepresented the vehicle as "clean."
- Raysoni returned the car seeking repurchase; Payless refused. He then sent notice under Georgia’s FBPA and sued for rescission based on misrepresentation, FBPA violations, deceit (fraud), and revocation of acceptance.
- Payless moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted the motion relying on the Buyer’s Order attached to the complaint, which contained prominent disclaimers: "AS-IS NO WARRANTY," statement that representations by the salesman are not binding, auction disclosure of unibody damage, and a recommendation to get an independent inspection.
- The appellate court accepted Raysoni’s factual allegations as true but found the written disclaimers negated justifiable reliance and affirmed dismissal of FBPA, fraud, and revocation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral misrepresentations give rise to an FBPA claim despite written disclaimers | Raysoni: salesman’s oral assurance and Carfax reliance meant Payless violated FBPA and caused injury | Payless: Buyer’s Order disclaimers and auction notice put buyer on notice; Raysoni failed to exercise due diligence and could not justifiably rely | Held: Dismissed — disclaimers preclude justifiable reliance; lack of due diligence bars FBPA claim |
| Whether fraud claim survives when contract contains contrary written disclaimers | Raysoni: relied on salesman’s oral misrepresentations inducing purchase | Payless: written contract directly contradicted oral statements; buyer bound by terms he had opportunity to read | Held: Dismissed — due diligence and written disclaimers defeat fraud claim |
| Whether revocation of acceptance (rescission) is available based on alleged antecedent fraud | Raysoni: vehicle nonconforming due to undisclosed wreck; rescission warranted | Payless: same disclaimer/due-diligence defenses; contract language controls | Held: Dismissed — rescission not allowed where contract disclaimers prevail and buyer had duty to read |
| Whether an alleged limited parts warranty (CV joints) nullifies the "As-Is" disclaimers | Raysoni: comments box promising 30-day CV joint warranty undermines "As-Is" clause | Payless: limited part warranty does not negate broad disclaimers about frame/body or relieve due diligence | Held: Dismissed — limited part warranty does not alter disclaimers or buyer’s obligation to investigate |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137 (reliance/due-diligence required for private FBPA claim)
- Novare Group, Inc. v. Sarif, 290 Ga. 186 (party bound by written contract terms when had opportunity to read; reliance may be question of law where contract precludes reliance)
- Isbell v. Credit Nation Lending Svc., LLC, 319 Ga. App. 19 (buyer’s due diligence duty; used-car sales and FBPA context)
- Lynas v. Williams, 216 Ga. App. 434 (justifiable reliance is essential to FBPA causation)
- City Dodge, Inc. v. Gardner, 232 Ga. 766 (contract disclaimers do not automatically foreclose jury determination of reliance where antecedent fraud alleged)